The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1887-03-16
Washington County Court.

Hon. w. G. VEAzEY, PreSiding Judge.
Hon. ZED. S. STANTON, ,o.,.,o,,, ,,,,,o.
Hon. IRA S. DwINELL, hSS'S'"'" o""9eS'
The March term commenced on Tuesday,
the 8th instant. On the assignment of causes
for trial the docket contained twenty y-one
entries, the larger proportion of which were
disposed of on the first day of court by con-
tinuance or settlement leaving some half
dozen to be tried by the jury. The first
case was called up at the afternoon session
of the first day. 1t was that of
LOUISA p. SMITH u.s. JOSEPH PALMER.--The
plaintiff claimed to recover two items-one
for the labor of Lester Smith, her minor son,
for a period of four or five years during
his minority, and the other for a sum of
500, loaned to the defendant and not re-
paid. Mrs. Smith testified that her son went
to work for the defendant and worked for
him six years, beginning early in the year
1874 and running down to 1880, under an
agreement that the defendant was to do as
well for him as anybody would, or as well
as he would If Lester was his own boy The
defendant stated that the contract was that
he was to give the boy just what he had
mind to, but that he would treat him we'll
just as well as he would son of his own.
This was the issue between the parties as
to the first-named claim. In regard to the
other branch of the case, Mrs. Smith, the
plaintiff, testified that she loaned the de-
fendant 500 on January IA, 1874, and that
he had not paid it back. The defendant ad-
mitted that he received the money-not as
a loan, but for safe keeping-and testified
that the same identical money was repaid
to the plaintiff shortly afterwards, or in the
spring of the same year. Testimony was
introduced on both sides tending to support
the respective claims of the parties. When
the young man Q4ester Smith) arrived at
the age of twenty-one the defendant gave
him valuable colt, and this, he claimed,
N Les
testified that the colt came to him as gift
that Mr.. Palmer had given his own boy a
colt, and, under his promise, gave one also
to him. 1t was conceded that Lester had
received spending money from the de-
fendaDt and had also been furnished with
clothing by him and sent to school, as had
the defendants own boys. The jury found
in favor of the plaintiff on one issue, giving
her verdict for 800 and interest from
January IA, 1874, amounting in all to S179.16.
Pitkin * Huse and John II. Senter for the
plaintiff: G. III. Heath, Dillingham; and
Clough for defendant.
LEWIS w. AVERY rs. GEORGE NJ. Fisk
This was an action of trover. The facts in
the case were that in 1876 an attachment of
two horses was made justice writ
against Mr.. Blood of Northfeld. This prop
erty was receipted on August IA by the de-
fendant. The case went through the justice
| court, county court and supreme court, and
Judgment was finally rendered for an
amount exceeding the sum set up in the
receipt as the value of the horses. A de-
mand was made for the property and its de-
livery to the officer was refused. There
upon action was brought against Mr.. Fisk.
| 1t was claimed on the part of the defence
! that when the receipt was given there was
! no amount inserted as to the value of the
! horses. When the defendant learned the
amount that appeared on the receipt he had
| the costs computed and an amount of some
| Il 1nt al IL
was further claimed by the defendant that
the horses were not attachable, inasmuch as
they were the only horses Mr.. Blood had
and were exempt from attachment. The
reason that the defendant paid the S66
mentioned was to reduce the value of the
horses to $500, thus placing them within
the statute of exemptions. After the plant
itf had put in all his testimony and when
the defendant was proceeding with his side
of the case, an objection was raised by the
plaintiffs counsel that the defence proposed
to be made could not be made because it
was not pleaded. The court held that this
objection was well taken and decided that
in order to put in such defence the plaint-
itf should have received notice of the same
The defendants counsel then asked to be
allowed to file special plea, setting up his
defence, which request was granted, and
the plaintiffs counsel stated that they were
not prepared to meet the case thus to be
made, and asked for a continuance, which
was also granted Frank Plumley and
George w. Wing for plaintiff; j. p. Lamson
for defendant.
JOHN KEW, JR. rs. CHARLES III. STACK
PoLE,-In this case the plaintiff sued upon
the following note: Bolton, June 1st
1S77.-Four years from date, for value re-
ceived, promise to pay William II. Kew
or bearer $780, with interest" This note
was signed by defendant. The defendant
offered to show failure of consideration
nv tad tflI oh 1A1af ehnx hat
II. Kew had agreed with Stackpole that the
latter should sell certain horse for which
the note in suit was given, and should pay
only the amount realized by the sale of the
horse. Stackpole found the horse was q
bad kicker and disposed of il for S45, which
was all he could get for it. The defendant
further expected to satisfy the jury that the
suit was only brought by John Kew, brother
of William r., to prevent the defendant
from making his defence; that John was
not bona tide holder of the note for value
The plaintiffs counsel objected that this de
fence was not admissible against the bearer
of the note, and the court sustained the
objection, and ordered a verdict for the
plaintiff for S15S65. Exceptions by defend
ant and cause passed to the supreme court
Shurtleff and Gordon for plaintiff; HEATH
x Willard and George w, Wing for de
fendant.
ALoNZo HoLT as. NATHANIEL WILSON AMI
HENRY ADMINISTRATION of trespass. The
plaintiff owns place on the west side Of
South Main street in Barre village. His
next neighbor is a Mrs. Wilson, aunt of the
two defendants. The trespass complained
of was the building of fence, as it was
claimed, on the plaintiffs land-or rather
the digging of the post-holes, preparatory tC
putting a fence up. The plaintiff intro
duced several deeds from his grantors
tending to show title in him to the land
where the holes were dug. In the defence
it was claimed that Mrs. Wilson went into
occupancy of the place with her husband in
1860, and she has occupied it until now thai
at the time the plaintiff came to live there
the line between the two was settled upon
and that defendants did not go beyond thai
line in commencing TO build their fence